I don't care. The president can still be wrong in his opinion. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right or valid.

So you don't believe in the law either?

Again, good to know.

TheRedneck

Huh? Your arguments are overly simplistic. You aren't saying anything except that Trump has the power to do it, which I am not arguing against. I
am arguing that his competency is in question here and that he made a BAD DECISION. I'm not arguing that Trump can't legally declare a national
emergency.

I just wonder how much you hard core Trumpers will squeal about legality when the 25th amendment is invoked. The dude has clear mental issues.

Your arguments are overly simplistic. You aren't saying anything except that Trump has the power to do it, which I am not arguing against. I am
arguing that his competency is in question here and that he made a BAD DECISION.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the simple fact is that being legal does make an action valid. Right or wrong are of no consequence here,
because that is based on inner morality. The law is not constrained by your morality, nor by your opinions.

As much as you believe he made a bad decision, there are others, like me, who believe he made a good decision. As much as you are allowed to think it
was a bad decision, we are allowed to think it was a good decision. Neither opinion has any legitimate bearing on the law. You need to understand
that, because your earlier statement about validity indicated you do not.

Your mention of the 25th Amendment reinforces this. The 25th Amendment is not even remotely applicable at this time... it's only possible relevance
would be a misuse of that power to remove a President for purely political reasons, denying in the process the will of the people who elected him... a
coup d'etat. Are you in favor of a US coup d'etat?

Trump cannot be removed via the 25. Acting cabinet officials don’t have a vote. If over 50% of the cabinet is acting it cannot ever be applied.
This is a loophole in the law, but it is still the law... and another example of how many aspects of our government rely on good faith, and when
someone doesn’t govern in good faith it all breaks.

According to the 25th Amendment, Pence can assume the duties of President if he and a majority of agency heads transmit their intent to the President
pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House. But all Trump has to do is send the same people a rebuttal to block it. If Pence and a
majority of agency heads send a second letter of intent, then Trump can be ousted... by a 2.3 supermajority of both houses of Congress. That
won't happen. But there are still people who believe it will. Apparently, CNN still has a large following.

Even if by some miracle, Trump were to be removed by the 25th Amendment, Pence would still be President, and he is more conservative than Trump ever
was. Pence would then appoint a new Vice President, and Nancy Pelosi would still be two heartbeats away from the Presidency, not one. That particular
maneuver already happened when Spiro Agnew resigned as VP under Nixon. Nixon pardoned him, appointed Gerald Ford, resigned himself, and Ford became
President, appointed his own VP, and pardoned Nixon.

The only way 25th Amendment can be invoked is if the President is so incapacitated he cannot send a rebuttal, or the Congress so completely against
him that two thirds of both houses are willing to override the people. We're a long from that even in the condition we're in. Now if someone would
explain that to the MSM...

So many things wrong with this. I'll just go with three
1) You didn't post a link to the source of your image
2) When did we do the secure fence act of 2006? was it 2006? weird how the chart tapers after pretty hard after that, almost like barriers work. Who
woulda thunk???
3) None of this has anything to do with obama telling ICE to stand down, which means it doesn't disprove anything. All it does is prove that barriers
work. Especially that third chart.

2) When did we do the secure fence act of 2006? was it 2006? weird how the chart tapers after pretty hard after that, almost like barriers
work. Who woulda thunk???

Trump was originally talking like he was building the great wall of china, not just fencing. I have no problem with extending fences.

3) None of this has anything to do with obama telling ICE to stand down, which means it doesn't disprove anything. All it does is prove that
barriers work. Especially that third chart.

So 2 of your points were the same point.

My point was that illegal immigration has been declining for a decade, thus does not really seem worthy of a national emergency. Trump could have
easily funded this earlier before congress flipped. He could have had $24m last year for the project. I wasn't arguing that fences don't do
anything, but there are ways around it. It's not a wall.

I think we're to a point on most of our discussion where we either agree or will have to agree to disagree but I do want to address one fallacy that
is brought up all too often and that's this:

Trump could have easily funded this earlier before congress flipped.

No he could not. Funding bills require 60 votes in the senate, they were further from getting wall funding, due to this, before the election.
Republicans only had 51 votes now they have 53. The house is fractured and much easier to get people to flip votes. If they're in a vulnerable
district and trump can lay the lack of wall funding at their feet, when their constituents support it (see ben mcadams in utah for an example) they're
easy to flip. It's much more difficult to pressure a statewide elected official.

Democrats offered him well over 60 votes in exchange for funding dreamers (which was only a problem because Trump screwed them over in the first
place). And they offered him $25 billion. Being the expert negotiator that he is, he turned it down thinking he would be able to get more. After
that he lost all negotiating leverage and no sensible Republican, and no Democrats wanted anything to do with it.

In fact he offered them that again this year, but they again refused to budge (even for 5 billion, guess dreamers aren't worth much to the dems).

The dems are so scared of the wall and actually securing the border literally nothing will be enough. Trump, the master negotiator, has made this
abundantly clear. The dems are anti-america and that's all there is to it.

Seems they are leaving us with very little choice in the matter. Something has to be done to handle this, and letting unknown actors with unknowable
intent remain here just isn't an answer

The interest of our nation must be put first, humanitarian concerns are important but must always take a backseat (along with everything else)
to the sovereignty of our nation and dominance of our Constitution.

In order:

1) The Constitution & nation's sovereignty
2) Rule of law & legitimacy of our justice system
3) Humanitarian concerns + all other issues

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.